@breakit46 There's no evidence that 9/11 was not an inside job, and Loose Change is nothing but half-assed research to find "facts" (or more accurately half-truths and outright fabrications) to support a predetermined conclusion.
@terrymanning1 Umm, no. Loose Change has always been available to watch for free on the internet. I've never spent a penny on them, there's information out there for anyone to watch and read. You should try it, open up that mind of yours a bit.
@cymraegambyth Later versions of the film were always available TO BUY before being posted on the internet for free to generate more interest in their cash cow. How come there are FIVE versions of Loose Change is there's only ONE truth about what happened that day? Perhaps YOU should open your mind to the possibility that Loose Change is bullshit.
@terrymanning1 How come there are 5 versions? Because these documentaries need updating as more incriminating evidence comes in. It's what good documentary makers and researchers do.
@cymraegambyth Bollocks. Loose Change was originally written as a fictional account of 9/11 and the different versions were designed to fleece more idiots of their money. Claiming the phone calls from the planes were faked is a disgusting lie that Loose Change has never recovered from. They are liars. End of.
@terrymanning1 You know what, I've just seen your channel. I'm afraid you forfeit all credibility when you compare 9/11 truth with the moon landing and UFO's. Also, you list all of these supposedly unreliable documentaries and suggest that people go to different debunking websites for their information. Why use other people's words to bolster your own flawed argument? Is it because you're afraid of uncovering the truth if you actually did your own research?
@cymraegambyth Fuck off dipshit. You truthtards have no facts and no credibility. All you have are some retarded theories that have been thoroughly debunked. Now go away and masturbate to Alex Jones or something.
"Is it because you're afraid of uncovering the truth if you actually did your own research?"
Loose Change isn't truth. It's propoganda. It's way for these kids to make some money and fame. The final editions still contains MANY of the same lies as the original. For instance they still claim molten steel as a reason the towers fell. Yet in a hard-fire interview a year earlier they admitted molten steel was not part of the collapse secenario. Compulsive liars!!!
were does the cons stand now,,i cant stand the person that made that shite about conspirses ABOUT 9\11,,,,,WHEN OSAMA IS NOMORE,, .......should be asamed of themselfs...........
We must stop the NWO, we must stop the evil Builderburgers and the Jews and bush otherwise he will fly planes into everywhere and blow us all up for his precious oil. There gona get us, just like the boogeyman....... RETARDS
I haven't looked yet but I bet if I go to unclesamsnephew666's page I will find a youtube account set up for no other reason that to act as a shill for the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just a hunch!
@kkkaldav As I thought- unclesamsnephew666's whole account is devoted to supporting the lies of the Bush administration and their illegal land-grabbing wars of the past decade. Bizarrely, he even accuses others here of having so much "emotionally invested" in 9/11 that they cannot see the truth. ROFL So much emotional investment that they would, for example, devote their entire youtube account to abusing people who disagree with them on this defining issue. Oh wait, thats what he has done! LOL
@kkkaldav -so you're more concerned with my account than backing up your silly little fantasy with any facts. can't blame you since you don't have any. like most frantic truthtards, tilting at windmills, all you have is a thousand assumptions, a bunch of guesses and some plain old bullshit. but you've got extra ranting and raving, and you're clearly an emotional wreck. you should take up knitting.
@unclesamsnephew666 Re your account, I am just pointing the obvious. I mean, what kind of person dedicates their whole youtube account to ranting and raving at people who, quite correctly, don't think Saddam Husein had weapons of mass destruction and that the US just made that up in order to invade a sovereign state and steal the people's property.
@kkkaldav the way you ASSUME is comical. why do you assume I support either war? are you so simple-minded that you assume all people who disagree with the truth movement are bush supporters? war supporters? rabid right wingers? is that how dumb you are?
@kkkaldav LMAO! is this what you mean...BBC, for example, quoted one structural engineer as saying "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted..."
so a single, random, unnamed "Structural engineer" who any adult could tell is clearly speculating since on 9/11 or 9/12 no one knows much beyond speculation...THAT is your excuse for mouth-breathing truthtards repeating "fire can't melt steel" like a zombie mantra?
what a joke. get a new hobby, son. this is too much for you.
@unclesamsnephew666 He's not unnamed. If you read the article you will see his name and if you read the article and look at the graphic you will see the same nonsense repeated many times. The point being that the same experts you now believe with all your heart are quite capable of talking utter bollocks. Bollocks which you repeat ad nauseum while citing their credentials as if that settled things. This is what the BBC article shows is false.
@kkkaldav "you will see the same nonsense repeated many times" - it is nonsense. and it is stupid to take it at face value, ignore that this speculation was done the day after 9/11, and use it as an excuse for truthtards repeating something so stupid for 9 years. you're making my case for me, truthtard.
"the same experts" - hardly. they aren't the same people. are you now lumping all people with an expertise in anything together as unreliable liars? are you that ridiculous?
@unclesamsnephew666 The BBC article is just one example of many so-called experts who claimed in the days and weeks following 9/11 that fires melted the steel. The point is that these people are exactly the same type of credentialed "experts" who you now appeal to at every available opportunity. What the BBC article shows is that some of what these people say can't be trusted and is preposterously wrong. And since that is all I am saying about the BBC article it does the job just fine.
@kkkaldav "experts who claimed in the days and weeks following 9/11 that fires melted the steel." -- oh, now we're up to "weeks" not just the day after?
"who you now appeal to at every available opportunity" - I do? every time? no. often common sense and not being a gullible stooge is all that is required.
but you making a point that ALL experts are unreliable because a couple speculated on 9/11...weak.
@unclesamsnephew666 Like a typical official conspiracy fantasist, you just twist and turn when proven wrong. You said nobody claimed that the steel melted and I have now provided two examples of experts claiming exactly that. And since this shows you were talking out of your arse, you now bring in some irrelevant time constraint as if that makes any difference. The point is: how can you be such an expert on 9/11 if only a few hours ago you were completely mistaken on such a simple point.
"you now bring in some irrelevant time constraint as if that makes any difference"
really? so the time it takes to find out more information...doesn't make a difference? assessments made immediately can't be made better with the info that comes with TIME?
@unclesamsnephew666 And here is the real point. Since you have shown yourself to know fuck all about 9/11 even on such a simple point as this. And since you have shown fuck all integrity by changing the subject rather than just admitting you were wrong. You, like the experts we were discussing, have shown yourself to be totally unreliable, and have therefore given no reason to think anything you say is true. In light of that, the best thing you can do is simply fuck off. Bye bye.
@unclesamsnephew666 LOL - the melting point of steel is a pretty well known fact - especially for a structural engineer and for organisations like New Scientist. If they'd said the towers were as high as the moon, you'd be claiming that that's ok since they needed time to check it out. It's hard to imagine how anyone could be wrong as many times as you in only a few posts. Do yourself a facour, fuck off before you embarrass yourself even more.
"the melting point of steel is a pretty well known fact" - yes, but the temperature in the towers wasn't. that took time to study and come to a conclusion on.
you said time constraints are "irrelevant" - can you see where you're wrong? how time helps in cases like these? or are you unable to accept that?
"If they'd said...you'd be" - no I wouldn't. why waste time with this stupid shit? are you avoiding anything factual? why is this always so personal with truthtards?
@unclesamsnephew666 LOL - since the temperatures of normal fires is known it is easy to know that a 45 minute fire could not possibly melt the steel of the towers. You really do think the towers were as high as the moon. What a fucking arsehole. Maybe you should go away and practice your critical thinking skills.
@kkkaldav "since the temperatures of normal fires" LOL! yeah, an airplane slamming into a sjyscraper...that fits the description of a "normal fire."
to a truthtard, of course.
"high as the moon" - who said that? what does that even mean? why are you changing the subject? not only do I know the height, I've been in the building dozens of times. how about you? ever seen it in person? can you even comprehend a 1 square acre 110-story building? unlikely, based on your ridiculous posts.
@unclesamsnephew666 So are you now saying the fires burned abnormally hot? Perehaps there was something magic about them. Woooooooo. Looks like you might be going down the hot enough to melt the steel road. And it was you who said the towers were as high as the moon. Just in your last post, you said "high as the moon" woooooo. Typical kiddiefiddling official story bleiving warmongering psychopath . Woooooooo.
so you believe in magically hot fires? you must, since you suggested the possibility. that explains a lot, truthtard.
"And it was you who said the towers were as high as the moon." - that's a lie, and a quick review below proves it. typical lying truthtard, you'll say ANYTHING to avoid facing the facts.
"warmongering" - and that is based on what? nothing. again, typical truthtard making shit up to avoid the facts and concentrate on me. you're not very good at this, truthtard.
@unclesamsnephew666 You're the one who believes the experts are infallible, and that means you believe in the magically hot fires the experts thought melted the steel. Typical official conspiracy believing fuckwit - will believe anything anyone says on mainstream media. And I don't know why you keep lying about saying the towers were as high as the moon. You said it again in your last post. You really should fuck off.
@kkkaldav "You're the one who believes the experts are infallible" - more made-up shit. perhaps your problem is, as a truthtard, you don't understand the difference between assumptions and facts.
of course I mock the "melt steel" shit, so no surprise you think I believe the opposite.
what a complete waste of time you are. which is typical of 99% of you truthtards. when you're losing, you make shit up. like this "high as the moon" nonsense.
@unclesamsnephew666 I'm only spinning you along. I don't care what you say. I'm not interested in you constant prattling and bullshit. Don't you get it? Nobody thinks the towers are as high as the moon*. Who cares. As if I need to justify myslef to a prick like you. Fuck off.
@unclesamsnephew666 wow you're arguments just get stronger and stronger. I for one feel chastened by having experienced your rapier like wit and incisive logical something or other. NOT!
@kkkaldav "wow you're arguments just get stronger and stronger"
two things: it's "your" not "you're" - and if you don't realize I am not even trying with you anymore, you're more of a gullible imbecile than I thought.
as soon as a truther stops trying to argue their assumptions and fantasies against the facts and reality, and starts harping on my "entire you tube account" and other unimportant shit, I know I've won and the truthtard is unable to hang.
@unclesamsnephew666 On you user page you refer to people who don't believe that each and every aspect of the official story is true as: the dumbest dumbshits EVER. so gullible and drama queeny, their lives must be so empty to follow this contradictory horseshit parade... How empty must your life be to devote your entire youtube account to confronting and abusing those people in an attempt to justify two illegal wars.
"to devote your entire youtube account" - is that supposed to be something important? one's "entire youtube account" - wow, what a waste, huh? I guess could be using it to announce to the world I'm a gullible nit wit like you.
you're right. I should have said no "official explanation" claims fire melted steel (rather than "no one").
like you said, some people did say that.
since the official explanation, truthers who still repeat it are retards. the point stands. the word usage argument is yours. enjoy the high point of your life and let me know if you want to go back to the facts of the case. literal interpretation debates aren't as interesting. tell me you believe the hijackers are alive.
@unclesamsnephew666 as I said, typical official theory fantasist. You are proven wrong and you change the subject to something else and try to pretend that I believe other things I haven't even mentioned. As I said, fuck off and stop embarrassing yourself.
I love the way some of these official theory arseholes think everyone else is just desperate to hear their "words of wisdom". Take dookdawg214 for example. He waltzes in, talks utter shite, liberally abuses people, and then informs us that since we have broken one of his new rules he will therefore no longer be speaking to/enlightening us. What a pompous twat! Who gives a fuck what he thinks. Goobye? Good riddance. Jog on.
"We have questions and you're not giving us answers." LOL. What hasn't been answered? Everything has. There's a perfectly rational response to every single absurd claim made by you nutbags. People aren't opening up investigations for you for the same reason they're not opening up investigations for alien abductees. Another funny part of this video is when this guy says the scientific community is on his side. ROFL. Every serious scientific panel and study goes against you, you morons.
@dookdawg214 Oh really? Have you looked at what the engineers and architects who say it was an inside job have said? Or have you only read what the Popular Mechanics crowd has written? Jet fuel does NOT burn hot enough to melt steel. In fact kerosene burns hotter than jet fuel!! So who's the moron??
Melted steel? OK, this is where I stop. I've got a new rule: as soon as a Truther throws out a blatant straman argument (ie. something nobody is arguing), I just walk away. Nobody is claiming the steel melted, you freak. Goodbye.
Why does almost every single post by almost every single denialist have to include name-calling and abuse. It's almost as if they really have nothing to say and so have to resort to that in order to vent the anger they feel. I wonder if this is the result of the cognitive dissonance caused by at some level knowing full well 9/11 was an inside job but being unable to allow that thought into consiousness. Who knows?
@kkkaldav "Why does almost every single post...have to include name-calling and abuse."
simple, it's because you truthtards are fucking idiots who WANT this to be true, you ask the same already-answered questions over and over, you speak about a wildly inconsistent theory with 100% certainty, and you're all ugly and your moms dress you funny.
@unclesamsnephew666 very few of the questions have actually been answered. For example, there is no current official version for the actual collapse of the twin towers. NIST stopped it "explanation" at the instant the tops started to move - LOL. I guess that's why denialists like yourself choose to focus on what's may orm may not be in my mother's wardrobe.
@unclesamsnephew666 The "already answered questions" have NOT been answered truthfully or factually, you lie monger! If LIES satisfy you then fine. But leave the intelligent people alone to pursue the truth!!
@livnfree930 "The "already answered questions" have NOT been answered truthfully' -- sure they have, you just don't like the answers because you WANT the conspiracy to be true. like most truthtards, you're so emotionally invested in it, the fact that there was no inside job is completely out of the question. so you'll keep ranting and raving like a lunatic and screaming about truth when you are unable to accept it. if you really believed inside job, you'd be doing more than this, wouldn't you?
It's out of frustration because you don't pay attention. People have done so much work to answer your claims and, instead of reading the responses and trying to counter them, you keep on screaming the same claims that have been addressed. Melted steel? For chirst's sake. Do you know how many of you retards are still arguing about jet fuel not being able to melt steel? If they bother to read even the most basic debunking site, they'll see that melted steel isn't even in the equation.
@dookdawg214 Molten steel is important for several reasons. 1. On 9/11 a number of experts did claim that fire melted the steel. This is a telling point about the expertise of experts. 2. Molten steel was reported by many at ground zero, yet there is nothing in the official story which would explain this. 3. Offical version apologists like yourself constantly conflate (1) and (2) in order to not address (2). E.G., it is point (2) livnfree raised below yet you simply prattled on about (1).
1) Which experts were talking about molten steel, what were they claiming, and what was their expertise? In any case, whatever some people may have claimed, the official story does not include melted steel.
2) Claimed by whom and confirmed by whom? Do you have some claims by credible sources or just unconfirmable witness accounts.
3) No need to conflate or reconclile 1 and 2. There was no melted steel, period.
@dookdawg214 1. The BBC, for example, quoted one structural engineer as saying "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted...". However, my point wasn't about whether this was true or not, it was about the unreliability of the so-called experts you now believe with all your heart. 2. There are many reports of molten steel at ground zero from credible sources, e.g., from Mark Loizeaux. 3. See 2 above. Good third point you make btw, real solid reasoning/fantasising - lol.
I'm not surprised by how vague and weak your rebuttals are. I asked you for names and sources and you tell me about some random BBC quote and don't even name the structural engineer. Do you not understand what I'm telling you? Melted steel is not part of the equation whatsoever. Mark Loizeaux has been debunked to death. Stop cherrypicking the tiny few people who've said things that seem to make it look like you have a point. The scientific communitiy is in vast disagreement with you.
@dookdawg214 ah. I see you favour the bald assertion and total denial school of argument. you refuse to accept that anyone said the steel melted. I provide you with a straightforward quote from a mainstream media source citing an expert saying exactly that and which is easily googleable and you call it vague. what would you like? should I arrange for him to come round your house and tell you in person. why don't you just keep your promise and fuck off!
@kkkaldav "On 9/11 a number of experts did claim that fire melted the steel. This is a telling point about the expertise of experts" -- you're new to this, aren't you?
I see this diversion all the time. fact is, truthers say "fire can't melt steel" and they are talking about the collapse. but no one ever said the steel had to melt for the collapse to occur. classic strawman that some truthtards continue to repeat. and like all truther points, they are defended no matter what. laughable.
@unclesamsnephew666 It's a really good point you make except for the fact that it's shite. As noted, the BBC did say that melting columns and melting floors caused the collapse. They had experts state explicitly that this is what happened. Quotes are provided below. And yet despite this, official conspiracy theory fanatics like you still claim it they never said it.
@kkkaldav "the BBC did say that melting columns and melting floors caused the collapse" -- the BBC said it? all of them at once? the camera operators, janitors, and secretaries? wow, that's impressive. sorry, nitwit, newspapers don't make scientific/engineering statements. they reports on (usually) experts that do.
see, this is your problem. how can you expect to be taken seriously when you say dumb shit like this?
@unclesamsnephew666 1. To make a pedantic point like the one you just did is hardly an indication that you have a very strong argument. 2. The quotes referred to are (duh!) quoted in one of my previous posts below and are in quotation marks following the phrase "The BBC, for example, quoted one structural engineer as saying".... And if you google the words in the quote below you will find that the article is still there on the BBC website. That is, the BBC are still saying it.
@kkkaldav are you admitting that whining about my account is all you've got since you dont have facts, only guesses and assumptions? if so, there may be hope for you. the first step to not being a truthtard is admitting you're a truthtard. admitting that the movement has made you a paranoid, gullible fool who rightfully deserves to have clown makeup tattooed to his face. once you do that, you might be able to shake free from this cult of stupid.
@unclesamsnephew666 I am making plenty of other points than the one about you being a sad kiddiefiddling cunt whole only goal in life (other tghan kiddiefiddling) is to defend various illegal wars.
did anyone ask these jerkoffs why they deceptively edited mike walter's pentagon account? did anyone ask these jerkoffs why they used the firemen saying "secondary device" footage from stuyvestand high school and tried to make it look like it was at the WTC? these doucebags are liars, pure and simple. the people who take them seriously are deluded nitwits who WANT the inside job to be true. truthtards...will they ever grow up?
@kkkaldav "plenty of testimony" -- from who? what are they saying? is anyone, other than truthtards, claiming there WERE secondary devices? or were they talking about rumors, like stuyvestant high school? or things that sound like bombs? some firemen say things sounded like bombs, so truthers then claim "firemen said there were bombs."
you want to defend these lying scumbags, go ahead. I'm sure it makes you feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel good.
@unclesamsnephew666 There were many there on the day who referred to significant explosions within the buildings - and not just that they heard sounds, but that they felt the effects as well.
@unclesamsnephew666 see here's the kind of thing, not that it will change your view, but worth thinking about. I found this after about 5 min, it's from the New York Times on sept 12 2001 and describes the fall of the first tower before the official story took hold:
"Abruptly, there was an ear-splitting noise. The south tower shook, seemed to list in one direction and then began to come down, imploding upon itself."
Ear-splitting noise? Ear-splitting, really? Obviously just a gas stove, eh.
@kkkaldav so you're surprised when a 110-story building, hit by an 200 ton jetliner at ramming speed, makes an "earsplitting sound" when its structure finally gives in and it collapses.
you're surprised? really? loud sounds are hard to understand, but you have no problem with the idea that part of "their" plan was to ram an airplane into a building already set for detonation. that part is easy to swallow, huh?
tell me the truth, are you a medically-confirmed imbecile or not?
@unclesamsnephew666 I think you should reread what the post says - it says the ear-splitting noise immediately preceded the collapse. I.e., a bomb probably went off. That being said, it's quite alarming that denialists like yourself claim the intellectual high ground but appear to have severe difficulties with basic reading and comprehension. Perhaps you should go back to school rather than snooping round my mother's wardrobe - nothing in there of interest to you.
@kkkaldav "the ear-splitting noise immediately preceded the collapse. I.e., a bomb probably went off"
seriously, if this procession of events---earsplitting noise followed by the visible collapse--confuses you and leads you to "a bomb probably went off" you are in WAY WAY WAY over your head. may I suggest a new hobby? blocks, perhaps. or coloring books. maybe that type of thing is more you're speed.
@unclesamsnephew666 Considering that they wanted the whole building to come down in ashes, it is very, very easy to believe they would detonate the building when physics do not support the idea of planes breaking the whole steel structure and bringing the buildings down! There are videos on You Tube where firemen are talking about seeing the explosions on the sides of the buildings!! You're the imbecile!
"Considering that they wanted the whole building to come down in ashes..." oh, you've seen "their" plans? you know what "they" wanted so specifically, yet you cannot put together a complete narrative of the day's events and what "they" did to execute this 4000-step plan, correct? yeah, that makes sense.
there are zero videos of firemen talking about detonations of explosives. word it however you need to, but that is the kind of fact you simply cannot accept. truthtard.
i don't understand why all these people are doubting the loose change guys, they're are telling truth. we all know it was an inside job. watch fahrenheit 9/11. American people are blind and stupid and arrogant. you don't see the truth until you have a lost one in iraq as a soldier
@yungweez3 "they're are telling truth" - HAHAHA! were they being truthful when they edited out mike walter's mention of american airlines? were they being truthful with the "secondary device" footage? no, they weren't. this isnt opinion, this is verifiable. but truthers like you never check out the claims made by these cretins. you want it to be true, a slick documentary is telling you what you want to hear, so you blindly accept it as fact. that is truther thinking in a nutshell.
'We only need one piece of evidence to prove the official story of 911 can't be true and the whole story cannot be true". I agree with him but all the claims of Loose Change are provably false. Every one.
Just because millions saw it doesn't mean millions believed it.
"All you have 2 do is research yourself & make up ur mind!" Thanks. I did. "Very few people look at the evidence and go from being Truthers to being believers in the official story". Well I did & I know others who have done 2.
@rubberritchie many of the claims from loose change, and the wider truth movement, turned out ot be true. A simple example is that Bush, and his camp, tried to claim that he left the classroom he was in as soon as he heard about the second plane strike. Even the teacher in the classroom claimed this, but the video of that day shows that is simply not true. That is, the truth movement claimed correctly, as against the official version, that Bush remained reading about a goat for many minutes.
my LOL moment was when the foreign news agency was reporting the collapse of WTC 7 while standing in front of WTC 7.. then the feed gets suddenly cut, and the building finally collapses.. sick.
Test samples from the dust and ground zero .Lab test results positively identify and confirm thermiitic materials . Also other test show and identify traces of nitrates. Very strange! Don't you think? I don't think these kids are crazy when even real engineers are questioning report from Goverment reports. Also there is a state of free fall. That is a fact! The crazy ones aren't asking the questions. Just going with what they are told and beleaving it as fact. Good work kids. I give you an A.
@taledarkside Do you really consider G.W. Bush, D. Cheney and D. Rumsfeld Americans? No; 9/11 was not done by Real Americans; it was done by CFR-Globalists, Multinational-Corporatists, and conscience-less minions of the Bilderberger New World Order.
The biggest liberal hollywood people in America don't even subscribe to the Loose Change crap... That should speak volumes... The kids that made Loose Change were hoping that they would get a big Hollywood contract... Instead, their video is free on the internet... So where do they go? Overseas to try and push their "movie"...
anyone who can't see there's a lot of unanswered questions here are simply burying there heads in the sand,can anyone tell me why all of the evidence was on ships on there way to china the day after the biggest crime in american history WHY? just please tell me if you know, why don't the authorities show a plane hitting the pentagon they have plenty of cameras around there ..WHY?...just 2 simple questions
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
How many times has Loose Change been edited for errors and re-released?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not by fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads 15 minutes after impact?
Since demolition experts estimated it would take over 100 men 4-6 months to place explosives in WTC 1, 2, & 7, how come no one witnessed any strange activity or strange boxes?
do some research,special forces use demolition a lot,do you t6hink it takes them 6 months to demolish a building?why was the power switched off in WTC 1 & 2 in the weeks prior to the demolition? why were maintainance men working in the buildings during the night prior to the demolitions? also marvin bush just so happened to own the security company who looked after the buildings,if you know anything whatsoever about the laws of physics,for the collapse to happen 3 times at free fall speed ????
"why was the power switched off in WTC 1 & 2 in the weeks prior to the demolition"
Weeks do not equal 5 months.
The night before does not equal 5 months.
Marvin Bush stopped working for Securacom 1 year before 911, and The Port Authority has always been in charge of WTC. Securacon was never in charge of WTC security.
No building fell a free fall that day. Freefall speed is a lie.
Not true , the port authority is part of many security companies . Yes it's their jurisdiction for the state of New York but you are confused about them being the only security company for the all those buildings???????????
@ctcole77 @ Ctcole77, WTC 7 was not free fall but close? Well how much closer does it have to be to be considered FREE FALL? Building 7 CAN NOT Possibly come down any faster than that. 2) Don't you find it a STRANGE COINCIDENCE that Marvin Bush even worked for Securacom at all? No Matter when he stopped working there. There's over 1,000 Coincidences on 9/11.
"Building 7 CAN NOT Possibly come down any faster than that."
Please provide structural calculations to support this LIE.
"Don't you find it a STRANGE COINCIDENCE that Marvin Bush even worked for Securacom at all? No Matter when he stopped working there."
Actually no, because Marvin Bush stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000. And the Port Authority, not securecom, has always been in charge of WTC security.
@ctcole77 @ Ctcole,1) What insurance company on this planet is going to cross the US Government and admit 9/11 is a fraud? Thats like some average Joe crossing a MOB Boss, it's not gonna happen. 2),Insurance Co. believes the 9/11 story like the rest of you BRAINWASHED IDIOTS. 3) The WTC came down ALL at once, NOT 18 minutes at one time and 56 at another, get your facts straight.
Can you spell CLUELESS! 'The WTC came down ALL at once" Really? Please explain this LIE.
"What insurance company on this planet is going to cross the US Government and admit 9/11 is a fraud?" Ok, we get it. So the New Wookie Order has the entire insurance industry in their pocket but hesitates at eliminating all you gullble 911 twoofers?
ctcole77 , I have to agree with you. I am not a crazy "conspiracy theorist" but I feel there was alot of strange things going on that day and alot of questions still out there. I don't like all the changes and different editions. No doubt the impact buckled the blg. Please investigate the company who ran security in the blg. Did you know there were blackout drills in that area b4 9/11 ? Op. NORTHWOODS just happen to be going on that day , more to this yet to come
Noone else in the world could have done that. Not "Al Qaida", not the Taliban, not Osama bin Laden. Noone but insiders in the US military could have got away with removing the standing orders to intercept ANY plane that shuts off vocal radio control and or looses electronic contact. Next: All professional Air traffic controllers KNOW the procedures. ONLY people in the military could be responsible for IGNORING the distress calls from the civillian air traffic controllers that long.
For a plane that not only looses radio contact but even has its automatic transponder turned off / malfunctioning, the air traffic controler has to immediately assume major electronic failiure in the aircraft and _immediately_ contact the proper channels, which both before and after 2001 were the military, who always have standing orders to immediately scramble fighters to intercept and acertain the situation. Dick Cheney removed this standing order early 2001.
Now, as with airlinecrashes you start with a clean slate, you do _not_ know exactly what has happened. So you start gathering knowledge and facts. Of the most conspicuous facts in the case of 911 is that ANY aircraft that is "lost" by airtraffic control will be reported within less than 5 minutes and fighters will be scrambled to assist & assert the condition of the plane. conventional radar will not loose the plane unless the plane manges to go under its range
I'm 40 years old, I have studied several subjects at university, especially scientific process and logic. I have been all the major reading scientific reports on 911 for the last 4 years and I'm sorry. For those who think Loose Channge is somehow "sketchy". Try again. There are now over 700 architects and enginneers who question the official version. The people here calling it "sketchy" speak from ignorance, wilful or not. Any investigation as long as this one has to follow apath of elimination
I gotta love how Loose Changes forgets the generator everytime they make a film. The generator was damaged at the pentagon and was move towards the pentagon. This is proof that Loose Change simulator was wrong and that the plane did not hit straight on. the airplane 45 degree left bank when it did that the left wing hit the generator, what happened was the airplane "tripped" into a 45 degree nose dive into the pentagon. If it did a stright on impact like the WTC it would have been more damage.
The scientific proof is NOT equally as sketchy. It took years to gather the information through experties of research from experts. These 2 teenages probably took a month making this doing sketchy researche online that they didn't even find out themselves and just gathered through the web. That is sketchy.
Sketchy? More like false and misleading. Any 'real' journalist would be hung for taking something he found on the internet and then pawning it off as truth. Why do you think there's been four or five of these films? Because the shit they put on the first one is so bogus that they had to change their "theory".
i don't think i've ever seen anyone more ignorant.
i have NO problem with people having an opinion, and expressing it. what i have a problem is, someone who has very, very sketchy research - and passes it off as fact. and, upon seeing scientific proof debunking their theories, still gives an ignorant response - rather than just accepting it.
they did prove that steel can be softened at far below its melting point (in under 5 minutes) - at lower temperatures than what would have been. i don't really want to get into this, as people can look it up for themselves. i was skeptical of the pentagon - but think of it this way - if the government had something to hide, why WOUDLN'T they just superimpose a plane into those images? they have the technology to do such a thing. they know people aren't stupid. if this truly was
this big "cover up", you'd think that a power so strong - with so many intelligent people (some, not so much), would think to cover up their tracks perfectly, and know how to do so.
if they knew about the attacks beforehand, that's a different story. i wouldn't be surprised if they did, it would make perfect sense that they had some idea of it. but when it comes to the other theories, it's so difficult to ignore everything that debunks it.
For all those who still believe the government's 'official version' (called the Official Conspiracy Act), answer ONE pertinent question, and all this goes away:
How do you fit a 124' wide aircraft, 42' tall, into a 16' hole, causing NO damage to either side of the hole, nor above?
Please explain the physical dynamics behind the 'official explanation', AND RELEASE ONE VIDEO OF ALL THOSE CONFISCATED THAT SHOWS A 757.
Shaun, you're a frickin' idiot. Shut up, you're not in any position to claim anything yourself, so go screw your sister, or whatever you ignorant hicks do.
Hey I'm not a hick but I think Shaun is right. Everybody wants to pretend the US has no terrorist threats, even before 9/11. Then 9/11 happened and there's still a mass of idiots who would rather blame it on their own country. And you wonder why other countries think Americans are stupid... We bring it on ourselves!
The truth is, fengineer, we knew there were credible threats from terrorism, however, if it were not orchestrated by our government, it was certainly abetted by us. And obviously feng, you need to go back and study your history before you make little ignorant comments like that.
mr. d. avery is the only man who has the balls to confront the evil doer"s of the world. and yes, mr. bush had everything to do with this event on 9/11/2001. the plan was put together long ago, years in advance. and dick chaney is the mastermind of the plan, that hasnt really taken its full effect on humanity. look into chaney and how he started to put it all together.
Bush was on the first plane to hit WTC and parachuted out at the last minute shouting "mission accomplished!". If you look at the film footage you can see his parachute, it says "Don't mess with Texas" on it.
Cheney piloted the other plane that crashed into the WTC. He died and the GOP replaced him with a robot clone.
Hahahahahahahahahahaaah...! Do you also believe in Santa?
And are you also with the bunch who don't want a new investigation (who - how odd it may seem - always are the ones not able to even consider the I-job)? Don't you think it's a little disrespecting e.g. the widows that made "Press For Truth"?
every 'fact' in loose change is either made up or taken out of context or not relevant, go on pick one, u r the koolaid drinker dude not even lookin beyond youtube clips for evidense, sad lad
i don't need loose change like you need your debunker friends to make you feel comfortable about your government. it's obvious to me that 911 was a n inside job. the free fall collapse of the towers, the fact the fires weren't even hot enough to even weaken steel, the collapse of 7, the fact that al qaeda is funded and trained by the CIA... i could go on for a while. you should go watch "zero: an investigation into 9/11"
fires not strong enough whatsoever to weaken steel
-true
collapse of 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed (no plane hitting this one)
-true
everybody knows that al qaeda is boogyman group that the CIA made up, dumby
-true
you can sit there and lie to your self all you want, but until you back yourself up im gonna have to assume that your full of shit and you haven't looked for yourself. so hurry! go read up on your popular mechanics propaganda.
This has been flagged as spam show
Conspiracy is the new stupid fucking religion.. Everyone who don't believe are part of the conspiracy.. Hmm, reminds me of God and the devil?
samuelsson91 3 weeks ago
did he say the dust shot out every three floors in lie with the welds of the panels? To bad the makes no sense. The panels were staggered :P
MegaYeshua33 2 months ago
Grow up, bickering and ranting abuse back and forth.
Childish.
911 was an inside job.
Loose Change exists in it's latest form due to updated research.
Those against Its content offer little, besides abuse, in the way of counter argument.
Wake up please, people are Still losing their lives for The War On Terror.
breakit46 3 months ago
@breakit46 There's no evidence that 9/11 was not an inside job, and Loose Change is nothing but half-assed research to find "facts" (or more accurately half-truths and outright fabrications) to support a predetermined conclusion.
nexus1g 1 month ago
@nexus1g and dont forget most importantly a cult agenda.
MegaYeshua33 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want evidence that God exists, or are interested in 9/11 search Jonathan Cahn 1 - Harbinger the Warning, on youtube here.
IwillhonorGod 4 months ago
When was this press conference? I guess late in 2007, right?
NDoraku 4 months ago
Loose Change is utter shit. Dylan Avery and his butt buddy BermASS are scumbags. Truthers are complete retards.
terrymanning1 6 months ago
@terrymanning1 Go back to sleep, k?
cymraegambyth 4 months ago
@cymraegambyth How about you wake up the scam that's called 9/11 "truth"?
terrymanning1 4 months ago
@terrymanning1 Okay then, awaken me. What exactly is the scam of 9/11 truth?
cymraegambyth 4 months ago
@cymraegambyth Make money from deceiving gullible people like you. Loose Change made a fortune for the lying bastards who made it.
terrymanning1 4 months ago
@terrymanning1 Umm, no. Loose Change has always been available to watch for free on the internet. I've never spent a penny on them, there's information out there for anyone to watch and read. You should try it, open up that mind of yours a bit.
cymraegambyth 4 months ago
@cymraegambyth Later versions of the film were always available TO BUY before being posted on the internet for free to generate more interest in their cash cow. How come there are FIVE versions of Loose Change is there's only ONE truth about what happened that day? Perhaps YOU should open your mind to the possibility that Loose Change is bullshit.
terrymanning1 4 months ago
@terrymanning1 How come there are 5 versions? Because these documentaries need updating as more incriminating evidence comes in. It's what good documentary makers and researchers do.
cymraegambyth 4 months ago
@cymraegambyth Bollocks. Loose Change was originally written as a fictional account of 9/11 and the different versions were designed to fleece more idiots of their money. Claiming the phone calls from the planes were faked is a disgusting lie that Loose Change has never recovered from. They are liars. End of.
terrymanning1 4 months ago
@terrymanning1 You know what, I've just seen your channel. I'm afraid you forfeit all credibility when you compare 9/11 truth with the moon landing and UFO's. Also, you list all of these supposedly unreliable documentaries and suggest that people go to different debunking websites for their information. Why use other people's words to bolster your own flawed argument? Is it because you're afraid of uncovering the truth if you actually did your own research?
cymraegambyth 4 months ago
@cymraegambyth Fuck off dipshit. You truthtards have no facts and no credibility. All you have are some retarded theories that have been thoroughly debunked. Now go away and masturbate to Alex Jones or something.
terrymanning1 4 months ago
@terrymanning1 You wanna talk about credibility? I can see the ratings for your videos in my history playlist. No wonder you disabled them!
cymraegambyth 4 months ago
@cymraegambyth Ratings disabled because scumbag truthers gang together and one star anything that doesn't agree with their lies. Now fuck off.
terrymanning1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cymraegambyth
"Is it because you're afraid of uncovering the truth if you actually did your own research?"
Loose Change isn't truth. It's propoganda. It's way for these kids to make some money and fame. The final editions still contains MANY of the same lies as the original. For instance they still claim molten steel as a reason the towers fell. Yet in a hard-fire interview a year earlier they admitted molten steel was not part of the collapse secenario. Compulsive liars!!!
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
were does the cons stand now,,i cant stand the person that made that shite about conspirses ABOUT 9\11,,,,,WHEN OSAMA IS NOMORE,, .......should be asamed of themselfs...........
elsdon001 8 months ago in playlist LOSE CHANGE
should i start applying for a gun? or start not paying for my taxes....or should i just do nohting
MrSlipguy 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
911 WAS an inside job!!!!!!!!!!
blueshero79 9 months ago
Yes.. Because the Truth has versions.
roquefortfiles 9 months ago
We must stop the NWO, we must stop the evil Builderburgers and the Jews and bush otherwise he will fly planes into everywhere and blow us all up for his precious oil. There gona get us, just like the boogeyman....... RETARDS
intruda11 1 year ago
I haven't looked yet but I bet if I go to unclesamsnephew666's page I will find a youtube account set up for no other reason that to act as a shill for the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just a hunch!
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav As I thought- unclesamsnephew666's whole account is devoted to supporting the lies of the Bush administration and their illegal land-grabbing wars of the past decade. Bizarrely, he even accuses others here of having so much "emotionally invested" in 9/11 that they cannot see the truth. ROFL So much emotional investment that they would, for example, devote their entire youtube account to abusing people who disagree with them on this defining issue. Oh wait, thats what he has done! LOL
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav -so you're more concerned with my account than backing up your silly little fantasy with any facts. can't blame you since you don't have any. like most frantic truthtards, tilting at windmills, all you have is a thousand assumptions, a bunch of guesses and some plain old bullshit. but you've got extra ranting and raving, and you're clearly an emotional wreck. you should take up knitting.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 Re your account, I am just pointing the obvious. I mean, what kind of person dedicates their whole youtube account to ranting and raving at people who, quite correctly, don't think Saddam Husein had weapons of mass destruction and that the US just made that up in order to invade a sovereign state and steal the people's property.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav the way you ASSUME is comical. why do you assume I support either war? are you so simple-minded that you assume all people who disagree with the truth movement are bush supporters? war supporters? rabid right wingers? is that how dumb you are?
look at what being a truthtard has done to you.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@kkkaldav LMAO! is this what you mean...BBC, for example, quoted one structural engineer as saying "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted..."
so a single, random, unnamed "Structural engineer" who any adult could tell is clearly speculating since on 9/11 or 9/12 no one knows much beyond speculation...THAT is your excuse for mouth-breathing truthtards repeating "fire can't melt steel" like a zombie mantra?
what a joke. get a new hobby, son. this is too much for you.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 He's not unnamed. If you read the article you will see his name and if you read the article and look at the graphic you will see the same nonsense repeated many times. The point being that the same experts you now believe with all your heart are quite capable of talking utter bollocks. Bollocks which you repeat ad nauseum while citing their credentials as if that settled things. This is what the BBC article shows is false.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav "you will see the same nonsense repeated many times" - it is nonsense. and it is stupid to take it at face value, ignore that this speculation was done the day after 9/11, and use it as an excuse for truthtards repeating something so stupid for 9 years. you're making my case for me, truthtard.
"the same experts" - hardly. they aren't the same people. are you now lumping all people with an expertise in anything together as unreliable liars? are you that ridiculous?
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 The BBC article is just one example of many so-called experts who claimed in the days and weeks following 9/11 that fires melted the steel. The point is that these people are exactly the same type of credentialed "experts" who you now appeal to at every available opportunity. What the BBC article shows is that some of what these people say can't be trusted and is preposterously wrong. And since that is all I am saying about the BBC article it does the job just fine.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav "experts who claimed in the days and weeks following 9/11 that fires melted the steel." -- oh, now we're up to "weeks" not just the day after?
"who you now appeal to at every available opportunity" - I do? every time? no. often common sense and not being a gullible stooge is all that is required.
but you making a point that ALL experts are unreliable because a couple speculated on 9/11...weak.
"the BBC article shows...can't be trusted"
ok, some can't.
THAT was your point?
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 Like a typical official conspiracy fantasist, you just twist and turn when proven wrong. You said nobody claimed that the steel melted and I have now provided two examples of experts claiming exactly that. And since this shows you were talking out of your arse, you now bring in some irrelevant time constraint as if that makes any difference. The point is: how can you be such an expert on 9/11 if only a few hours ago you were completely mistaken on such a simple point.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav
"you now bring in some irrelevant time constraint as if that makes any difference"
really? so the time it takes to find out more information...doesn't make a difference? assessments made immediately can't be made better with the info that comes with TIME?
you're an idiot.it's plain to see.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 And here is the real point. Since you have shown yourself to know fuck all about 9/11 even on such a simple point as this. And since you have shown fuck all integrity by changing the subject rather than just admitting you were wrong. You, like the experts we were discussing, have shown yourself to be totally unreliable, and have therefore given no reason to think anything you say is true. In light of that, the best thing you can do is simply fuck off. Bye bye.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav so you have no facts on 9/11, you're just concerned about me. typical truthtard.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 LOL - the melting point of steel is a pretty well known fact - especially for a structural engineer and for organisations like New Scientist. If they'd said the towers were as high as the moon, you'd be claiming that that's ok since they needed time to check it out. It's hard to imagine how anyone could be wrong as many times as you in only a few posts. Do yourself a facour, fuck off before you embarrass yourself even more.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav
"the melting point of steel is a pretty well known fact" - yes, but the temperature in the towers wasn't. that took time to study and come to a conclusion on.
you said time constraints are "irrelevant" - can you see where you're wrong? how time helps in cases like these? or are you unable to accept that?
"If they'd said...you'd be" - no I wouldn't. why waste time with this stupid shit? are you avoiding anything factual? why is this always so personal with truthtards?
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 LOL - since the temperatures of normal fires is known it is easy to know that a 45 minute fire could not possibly melt the steel of the towers. You really do think the towers were as high as the moon. What a fucking arsehole. Maybe you should go away and practice your critical thinking skills.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav "since the temperatures of normal fires" LOL! yeah, an airplane slamming into a sjyscraper...that fits the description of a "normal fire."
to a truthtard, of course.
"high as the moon" - who said that? what does that even mean? why are you changing the subject? not only do I know the height, I've been in the building dozens of times. how about you? ever seen it in person? can you even comprehend a 1 square acre 110-story building? unlikely, based on your ridiculous posts.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 So are you now saying the fires burned abnormally hot? Perehaps there was something magic about them. Woooooooo. Looks like you might be going down the hot enough to melt the steel road. And it was you who said the towers were as high as the moon. Just in your last post, you said "high as the moon" woooooo. Typical kiddiefiddling official story bleiving warmongering psychopath . Woooooooo.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav
so you believe in magically hot fires? you must, since you suggested the possibility. that explains a lot, truthtard.
"And it was you who said the towers were as high as the moon." - that's a lie, and a quick review below proves it. typical lying truthtard, you'll say ANYTHING to avoid facing the facts.
"warmongering" - and that is based on what? nothing. again, typical truthtard making shit up to avoid the facts and concentrate on me. you're not very good at this, truthtard.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 You're the one who believes the experts are infallible, and that means you believe in the magically hot fires the experts thought melted the steel. Typical official conspiracy believing fuckwit - will believe anything anyone says on mainstream media. And I don't know why you keep lying about saying the towers were as high as the moon. You said it again in your last post. You really should fuck off.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav "You're the one who believes the experts are infallible" - more made-up shit. perhaps your problem is, as a truthtard, you don't understand the difference between assumptions and facts.
of course I mock the "melt steel" shit, so no surprise you think I believe the opposite.
what a complete waste of time you are. which is typical of 99% of you truthtards. when you're losing, you make shit up. like this "high as the moon" nonsense.
if only it was at least amusing. it isn't.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 I'm only spinning you along. I don't care what you say. I'm not interested in you constant prattling and bullshit. Don't you get it? Nobody thinks the towers are as high as the moon*. Who cares. As if I need to justify myslef to a prick like you. Fuck off.
.
.
.
.
.
*except you
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav
you think the towers are as high as the moon. because you're a truthtard. a gullible, pitiful, no-life, paranoid loser pretending to be a rebel.
you should kill yourself.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 wow you're arguments just get stronger and stronger. I for one feel chastened by having experienced your rapier like wit and incisive logical something or other. NOT!
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav "wow you're arguments just get stronger and stronger"
two things: it's "your" not "you're" - and if you don't realize I am not even trying with you anymore, you're more of a gullible imbecile than I thought.
as soon as a truther stops trying to argue their assumptions and fantasies against the facts and reality, and starts harping on my "entire you tube account" and other unimportant shit, I know I've won and the truthtard is unable to hang.
it's only happened 100 times before.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 On you user page you refer to people who don't believe that each and every aspect of the official story is true as: the dumbest dumbshits EVER. so gullible and drama queeny, their lives must be so empty to follow this contradictory horseshit parade... How empty must your life be to devote your entire youtube account to confronting and abusing those people in an attempt to justify two illegal wars.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav
"to devote your entire youtube account" - is that supposed to be something important? one's "entire youtube account" - wow, what a waste, huh? I guess could be using it to announce to the world I'm a gullible nit wit like you.
seriously, kill yourself. you're boring.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@kkkaldav
you're right. I should have said no "official explanation" claims fire melted steel (rather than "no one").
like you said, some people did say that.
since the official explanation, truthers who still repeat it are retards. the point stands. the word usage argument is yours. enjoy the high point of your life and let me know if you want to go back to the facts of the case. literal interpretation debates aren't as interesting. tell me you believe the hijackers are alive.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 as I said, typical official theory fantasist. You are proven wrong and you change the subject to something else and try to pretend that I believe other things I haven't even mentioned. As I said, fuck off and stop embarrassing yourself.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 here is a quote from an article in New Scientist, "Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts", ooh!
kkkaldav 1 year ago
I love the way some of these official theory arseholes think everyone else is just desperate to hear their "words of wisdom". Take dookdawg214 for example. He waltzes in, talks utter shite, liberally abuses people, and then informs us that since we have broken one of his new rules he will therefore no longer be speaking to/enlightening us. What a pompous twat! Who gives a fuck what he thinks. Goobye? Good riddance. Jog on.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
"We have questions and you're not giving us answers." LOL. What hasn't been answered? Everything has. There's a perfectly rational response to every single absurd claim made by you nutbags. People aren't opening up investigations for you for the same reason they're not opening up investigations for alien abductees. Another funny part of this video is when this guy says the scientific community is on his side. ROFL. Every serious scientific panel and study goes against you, you morons.
dookdawg214 1 year ago
@dookdawg214 Oh really? Have you looked at what the engineers and architects who say it was an inside job have said? Or have you only read what the Popular Mechanics crowd has written? Jet fuel does NOT burn hot enough to melt steel. In fact kerosene burns hotter than jet fuel!! So who's the moron??
livnfree930 1 year ago
@livnfree930
Melted steel? OK, this is where I stop. I've got a new rule: as soon as a Truther throws out a blatant straman argument (ie. something nobody is arguing), I just walk away. Nobody is claiming the steel melted, you freak. Goodbye.
dookdawg214 1 year ago
Why does almost every single post by almost every single denialist have to include name-calling and abuse. It's almost as if they really have nothing to say and so have to resort to that in order to vent the anger they feel. I wonder if this is the result of the cognitive dissonance caused by at some level knowing full well 9/11 was an inside job but being unable to allow that thought into consiousness. Who knows?
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav "Why does almost every single post...have to include name-calling and abuse."
simple, it's because you truthtards are fucking idiots who WANT this to be true, you ask the same already-answered questions over and over, you speak about a wildly inconsistent theory with 100% certainty, and you're all ugly and your moms dress you funny.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 very few of the questions have actually been answered. For example, there is no current official version for the actual collapse of the twin towers. NIST stopped it "explanation" at the instant the tops started to move - LOL. I guess that's why denialists like yourself choose to focus on what's may orm may not be in my mother's wardrobe.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkkaldav "very few of the questions have actually been answered" - keep telling yourself that.
"there is no current official version for the actual collapse of the twin towers." learn to read.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 The "already answered questions" have NOT been answered truthfully or factually, you lie monger! If LIES satisfy you then fine. But leave the intelligent people alone to pursue the truth!!
livnfree930 1 year ago
@livnfree930 "The "already answered questions" have NOT been answered truthfully' -- sure they have, you just don't like the answers because you WANT the conspiracy to be true. like most truthtards, you're so emotionally invested in it, the fact that there was no inside job is completely out of the question. so you'll keep ranting and raving like a lunatic and screaming about truth when you are unable to accept it. if you really believed inside job, you'd be doing more than this, wouldn't you?
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@kkkaldav
It's out of frustration because you don't pay attention. People have done so much work to answer your claims and, instead of reading the responses and trying to counter them, you keep on screaming the same claims that have been addressed. Melted steel? For chirst's sake. Do you know how many of you retards are still arguing about jet fuel not being able to melt steel? If they bother to read even the most basic debunking site, they'll see that melted steel isn't even in the equation.
dookdawg214 1 year ago
@dookdawg214 Molten steel is important for several reasons. 1. On 9/11 a number of experts did claim that fire melted the steel. This is a telling point about the expertise of experts. 2. Molten steel was reported by many at ground zero, yet there is nothing in the official story which would explain this. 3. Offical version apologists like yourself constantly conflate (1) and (2) in order to not address (2). E.G., it is point (2) livnfree raised below yet you simply prattled on about (1).
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav
1) Which experts were talking about molten steel, what were they claiming, and what was their expertise? In any case, whatever some people may have claimed, the official story does not include melted steel.
2) Claimed by whom and confirmed by whom? Do you have some claims by credible sources or just unconfirmable witness accounts.
3) No need to conflate or reconclile 1 and 2. There was no melted steel, period.
dookdawg214 1 year ago
@dookdawg214 1. The BBC, for example, quoted one structural engineer as saying "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted...". However, my point wasn't about whether this was true or not, it was about the unreliability of the so-called experts you now believe with all your heart. 2. There are many reports of molten steel at ground zero from credible sources, e.g., from Mark Loizeaux. 3. See 2 above. Good third point you make btw, real solid reasoning/fantasising - lol.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav
I'm not surprised by how vague and weak your rebuttals are. I asked you for names and sources and you tell me about some random BBC quote and don't even name the structural engineer. Do you not understand what I'm telling you? Melted steel is not part of the equation whatsoever. Mark Loizeaux has been debunked to death. Stop cherrypicking the tiny few people who've said things that seem to make it look like you have a point. The scientific communitiy is in vast disagreement with you.
dookdawg214 1 year ago
@dookdawg214 ah. I see you favour the bald assertion and total denial school of argument. you refuse to accept that anyone said the steel melted. I provide you with a straightforward quote from a mainstream media source citing an expert saying exactly that and which is easily googleable and you call it vague. what would you like? should I arrange for him to come round your house and tell you in person. why don't you just keep your promise and fuck off!
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav "On 9/11 a number of experts did claim that fire melted the steel. This is a telling point about the expertise of experts" -- you're new to this, aren't you?
I see this diversion all the time. fact is, truthers say "fire can't melt steel" and they are talking about the collapse. but no one ever said the steel had to melt for the collapse to occur. classic strawman that some truthtards continue to repeat. and like all truther points, they are defended no matter what. laughable.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 It's a really good point you make except for the fact that it's shite. As noted, the BBC did say that melting columns and melting floors caused the collapse. They had experts state explicitly that this is what happened. Quotes are provided below. And yet despite this, official conspiracy theory fanatics like you still claim it they never said it.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav "the BBC did say that melting columns and melting floors caused the collapse" -- the BBC said it? all of them at once? the camera operators, janitors, and secretaries? wow, that's impressive. sorry, nitwit, newspapers don't make scientific/engineering statements. they reports on (usually) experts that do.
see, this is your problem. how can you expect to be taken seriously when you say dumb shit like this?
where are the "quotes are provided below"?
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 1. To make a pedantic point like the one you just did is hardly an indication that you have a very strong argument. 2. The quotes referred to are (duh!) quoted in one of my previous posts below and are in quotation marks following the phrase "The BBC, for example, quoted one structural engineer as saying".... And if you google the words in the quote below you will find that the article is still there on the BBC website. That is, the BBC are still saying it.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav are you admitting that whining about my account is all you've got since you dont have facts, only guesses and assumptions? if so, there may be hope for you. the first step to not being a truthtard is admitting you're a truthtard. admitting that the movement has made you a paranoid, gullible fool who rightfully deserves to have clown makeup tattooed to his face. once you do that, you might be able to shake free from this cult of stupid.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 I am making plenty of other points than the one about you being a sad kiddiefiddling cunt whole only goal in life (other tghan kiddiefiddling) is to defend various illegal wars.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkkaldav "I am making plenty of other points" - LMAO!!
no you aren't. you aren't making any point, other than the one on top of your head.
"defend illegal wars" - yeah, that must be it.
typical truthtard. assume, assume, assume.
you see the wars as proof of inside job because you're an idiot. but don't worry, it'll all make sense when you're an adult.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
Here is a Fact! Governments Lie, are incompetent and have killed their own citizens before through out history! nuff said
JoeTube27 1 year ago
MSM-Whores can`t be trusted...
log140 1 year ago
dylan avery is a loser who wants to be famous.
rigatony019 1 year ago
did anyone ask these jerkoffs why they deceptively edited mike walter's pentagon account? did anyone ask these jerkoffs why they used the firemen saying "secondary device" footage from stuyvestand high school and tried to make it look like it was at the WTC? these doucebags are liars, pure and simple. the people who take them seriously are deluded nitwits who WANT the inside job to be true. truthtards...will they ever grow up?
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 will you ever grow up - there is plenty of testimony from the day referring to secondary devices
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav "plenty of testimony" -- from who? what are they saying? is anyone, other than truthtards, claiming there WERE secondary devices? or were they talking about rumors, like stuyvestant high school? or things that sound like bombs? some firemen say things sounded like bombs, so truthers then claim "firemen said there were bombs."
you want to defend these lying scumbags, go ahead. I'm sure it makes you feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel good.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 There were many there on the day who referred to significant explosions within the buildings - and not just that they heard sounds, but that they felt the effects as well.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav so you think explosions can only come from explosives, huh?
and all loud booms are the result of explosives?
wow, who knew a gas stove or a car that malfuctions and explodes is really a government planted bomb all along! wow!
you are in way over your head, son. take up a new hobby.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 that's right, the car would have been on the race track on the 30th floor. LOL.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 see here's the kind of thing, not that it will change your view, but worth thinking about. I found this after about 5 min, it's from the New York Times on sept 12 2001 and describes the fall of the first tower before the official story took hold:
"Abruptly, there was an ear-splitting noise. The south tower shook, seemed to list in one direction and then began to come down, imploding upon itself."
Ear-splitting noise? Ear-splitting, really? Obviously just a gas stove, eh.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav so you're surprised when a 110-story building, hit by an 200 ton jetliner at ramming speed, makes an "earsplitting sound" when its structure finally gives in and it collapses.
you're surprised? really? loud sounds are hard to understand, but you have no problem with the idea that part of "their" plan was to ram an airplane into a building already set for detonation. that part is easy to swallow, huh?
tell me the truth, are you a medically-confirmed imbecile or not?
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 I think you should reread what the post says - it says the ear-splitting noise immediately preceded the collapse. I.e., a bomb probably went off. That being said, it's quite alarming that denialists like yourself claim the intellectual high ground but appear to have severe difficulties with basic reading and comprehension. Perhaps you should go back to school rather than snooping round my mother's wardrobe - nothing in there of interest to you.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkkaldav "the ear-splitting noise immediately preceded the collapse. I.e., a bomb probably went off"
seriously, if this procession of events---earsplitting noise followed by the visible collapse--confuses you and leads you to "a bomb probably went off" you are in WAY WAY WAY over your head. may I suggest a new hobby? blocks, perhaps. or coloring books. maybe that type of thing is more you're speed.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 Considering that they wanted the whole building to come down in ashes, it is very, very easy to believe they would detonate the building when physics do not support the idea of planes breaking the whole steel structure and bringing the buildings down! There are videos on You Tube where firemen are talking about seeing the explosions on the sides of the buildings!! You're the imbecile!
livnfree930 1 year ago
@livnfree930
"Considering that they wanted the whole building to come down in ashes..." oh, you've seen "their" plans? you know what "they" wanted so specifically, yet you cannot put together a complete narrative of the day's events and what "they" did to execute this 4000-step plan, correct? yeah, that makes sense.
there are zero videos of firemen talking about detonations of explosives. word it however you need to, but that is the kind of fact you simply cannot accept. truthtard.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
bunch of little pimple faced punk ass kids no wonder they have to make up lies
shunsky115 1 year ago
@shunsky115 lol where have you been living?under a rock?
romegenerals 1 year ago
@romegenerals you r an idiot seriously
shunsky115 1 year ago
@shunsky115 wake up kid
romegenerals 1 year ago
Great video, and thank god for these guys and people like them that wont give up asking the questions that need to be asked!
meushubris 1 year ago
i don't understand why all these people are doubting the loose change guys, they're are telling truth. we all know it was an inside job. watch fahrenheit 9/11. American people are blind and stupid and arrogant. you don't see the truth until you have a lost one in iraq as a soldier
yungweez3 1 year ago
@yungweez3 "they're are telling truth" - HAHAHA! were they being truthful when they edited out mike walter's mention of american airlines? were they being truthful with the "secondary device" footage? no, they weren't. this isnt opinion, this is verifiable. but truthers like you never check out the claims made by these cretins. you want it to be true, a slick documentary is telling you what you want to hear, so you blindly accept it as fact. that is truther thinking in a nutshell.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
'We only need one piece of evidence to prove the official story of 911 can't be true and the whole story cannot be true". I agree with him but all the claims of Loose Change are provably false. Every one.
Just because millions saw it doesn't mean millions believed it.
"All you have 2 do is research yourself & make up ur mind!" Thanks. I did. "Very few people look at the evidence and go from being Truthers to being believers in the official story". Well I did & I know others who have done 2.
rubberritchie 1 year ago
@rubberritchie many of the claims from loose change, and the wider truth movement, turned out ot be true. A simple example is that Bush, and his camp, tried to claim that he left the classroom he was in as soon as he heard about the second plane strike. Even the teacher in the classroom claimed this, but the video of that day shows that is simply not true. That is, the truth movement claimed correctly, as against the official version, that Bush remained reading about a goat for many minutes.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav But all that proves is Bush is an idiot something that is hardly a revelation ; )
rubberritchie 1 year ago
911 was an outside job. Watch 'Screw Loose Change'. Every claim Loose Change make is false.
rubberritchie 1 year ago
i am from the same country as gordon ross and yet i find it very hard to understand what he is saying
jimmy2k4o 1 year ago
free fall is in a vacuum
so 12 or even 15 seconds is very fast to fall
just look
cant believe your lying eyes
the 1st 2 towers didn't fall they exploded , disintegrated ,blow out sideways
waterchildtera 1 year ago
my LOL moment was when the foreign news agency was reporting the collapse of WTC 7 while standing in front of WTC 7.. then the feed gets suddenly cut, and the building finally collapses.. sick.
crashswanson 1 year ago
Test samples from the dust and ground zero .Lab test results positively identify and confirm thermiitic materials . Also other test show and identify traces of nitrates. Very strange! Don't you think? I don't think these kids are crazy when even real engineers are questioning report from Goverment reports. Also there is a state of free fall. That is a fact! The crazy ones aren't asking the questions. Just going with what they are told and beleaving it as fact. Good work kids. I give you an A.
dduffey60 2 years ago 2
@dduffey60 truth!!!!!
jonafromwales 1 year ago
"demolition was not done by americans"
LOL and people believe his lies
taledarkside 2 years ago
@taledarkside Do you really consider G.W. Bush, D. Cheney and D. Rumsfeld Americans? No; 9/11 was not done by Real Americans; it was done by CFR-Globalists, Multinational-Corporatists, and conscience-less minions of the Bilderberger New World Order.
rumblerider 1 year ago 2
@rumblerider Why does 'Loose Change' not mention Israels undeniable involvement in 9/11? Hmmm...
boi187 1 year ago
I guess 1% of the population downloading loose change, makes it the most downloaded movie. ROFL
taledarkside 2 years ago
The biggest liberal hollywood people in America don't even subscribe to the Loose Change crap... That should speak volumes... The kids that made Loose Change were hoping that they would get a big Hollywood contract... Instead, their video is free on the internet... So where do they go? Overseas to try and push their "movie"...
imax1971 2 years ago
Looks like the kid from The Wonder Years,O.k but this is a very interesting subject with a lot of unanswered questions and i respect his work
paulypaulification 2 years ago
anyone who can't see there's a lot of unanswered questions here are simply burying there heads in the sand,can anyone tell me why all of the evidence was on ships on there way to china the day after the biggest crime in american history WHY? just please tell me if you know, why don't the authorities show a plane hitting the pentagon they have plenty of cameras around there ..WHY?...just 2 simple questions
davyro66 2 years ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
How many times has Loose Change been edited for errors and re-released?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not by fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads 15 minutes after impact?
Since demolition experts estimated it would take over 100 men 4-6 months to place explosives in WTC 1, 2, & 7, how come no one witnessed any strange activity or strange boxes?
ctcole77 2 years ago
do some research,special forces use demolition a lot,do you t6hink it takes them 6 months to demolish a building?why was the power switched off in WTC 1 & 2 in the weeks prior to the demolition? why were maintainance men working in the buildings during the night prior to the demolitions? also marvin bush just so happened to own the security company who looked after the buildings,if you know anything whatsoever about the laws of physics,for the collapse to happen 3 times at free fall speed ????
davyro66 2 years ago
Take your own advice.
"why was the power switched off in WTC 1 & 2 in the weeks prior to the demolition"
Weeks do not equal 5 months.
The night before does not equal 5 months.
Marvin Bush stopped working for Securacom 1 year before 911, and The Port Authority has always been in charge of WTC. Securacon was never in charge of WTC security.
No building fell a free fall that day. Freefall speed is a lie.
WTC 7 was close, but not freefall.
Try watching Loose Change part 2.
ctcole77 2 years ago
Not true , the port authority is part of many security companies . Yes it's their jurisdiction for the state of New York but you are confused about them being the only security company for the all those buildings???????????
toddmanagain 2 years ago
Free fall speed is a lie ?
But WTC was close ?
How do the laws of physics apply on the planet you are e mailing from ?
toddmanagain 2 years ago
@ctcole77 @ Ctcole77, WTC 7 was not free fall but close? Well how much closer does it have to be to be considered FREE FALL? Building 7 CAN NOT Possibly come down any faster than that. 2) Don't you find it a STRANGE COINCIDENCE that Marvin Bush even worked for Securacom at all? No Matter when he stopped working there. There's over 1,000 Coincidences on 9/11.
mrfreaknasssty 1 year ago
"Building 7 CAN NOT Possibly come down any faster than that."
Please provide structural calculations to support this LIE.
"Don't you find it a STRANGE COINCIDENCE that Marvin Bush even worked for Securacom at all? No Matter when he stopped working there."
Actually no, because Marvin Bush stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000. And the Port Authority, not securecom, has always been in charge of WTC security.
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77 @ Ctcole,1) What insurance company on this planet is going to cross the US Government and admit 9/11 is a fraud? Thats like some average Joe crossing a MOB Boss, it's not gonna happen. 2),Insurance Co. believes the 9/11 story like the rest of you BRAINWASHED IDIOTS. 3) The WTC came down ALL at once, NOT 18 minutes at one time and 56 at another, get your facts straight.
mrfreaknasssty 1 year ago
@mrfreaknasssty
ROFL!
Can you spell CLUELESS! 'The WTC came down ALL at once" Really? Please explain this LIE.
"What insurance company on this planet is going to cross the US Government and admit 9/11 is a fraud?" Ok, we get it. So the New Wookie Order has the entire insurance industry in their pocket but hesitates at eliminating all you gullble 911 twoofers?
ctcole77 1 year ago
ctcole77 , I have to agree with you. I am not a crazy "conspiracy theorist" but I feel there was alot of strange things going on that day and alot of questions still out there. I don't like all the changes and different editions. No doubt the impact buckled the blg. Please investigate the company who ran security in the blg. Did you know there were blackout drills in that area b4 9/11 ? Op. NORTHWOODS just happen to be going on that day , more to this yet to come
toddmanagain 2 years ago
ctcole77: Good point.. The loose change people are uneducated kids... Unfortunately, kids that have profitted from their rediculous claims...
imax1971 2 years ago
Noone else in the world could have done that. Not "Al Qaida", not the Taliban, not Osama bin Laden. Noone but insiders in the US military could have got away with removing the standing orders to intercept ANY plane that shuts off vocal radio control and or looses electronic contact. Next: All professional Air traffic controllers KNOW the procedures. ONLY people in the military could be responsible for IGNORING the distress calls from the civillian air traffic controllers that long.
gunthaarz 2 years ago
For a plane that not only looses radio contact but even has its automatic transponder turned off / malfunctioning, the air traffic controler has to immediately assume major electronic failiure in the aircraft and _immediately_ contact the proper channels, which both before and after 2001 were the military, who always have standing orders to immediately scramble fighters to intercept and acertain the situation. Dick Cheney removed this standing order early 2001.
gunthaarz 2 years ago
Now, as with airlinecrashes you start with a clean slate, you do _not_ know exactly what has happened. So you start gathering knowledge and facts. Of the most conspicuous facts in the case of 911 is that ANY aircraft that is "lost" by airtraffic control will be reported within less than 5 minutes and fighters will be scrambled to assist & assert the condition of the plane. conventional radar will not loose the plane unless the plane manges to go under its range
gunthaarz 2 years ago
I'm 40 years old, I have studied several subjects at university, especially scientific process and logic. I have been all the major reading scientific reports on 911 for the last 4 years and I'm sorry. For those who think Loose Channge is somehow "sketchy". Try again. There are now over 700 architects and enginneers who question the official version. The people here calling it "sketchy" speak from ignorance, wilful or not. Any investigation as long as this one has to follow apath of elimination
gunthaarz 2 years ago
I gotta love how Loose Changes forgets the generator everytime they make a film. The generator was damaged at the pentagon and was move towards the pentagon. This is proof that Loose Change simulator was wrong and that the plane did not hit straight on. the airplane 45 degree left bank when it did that the left wing hit the generator, what happened was the airplane "tripped" into a 45 degree nose dive into the pentagon. If it did a stright on impact like the WTC it would have been more damage.
warlord2080 2 years ago
The scientific proof is NOT equally as sketchy. It took years to gather the information through experties of research from experts. These 2 teenages probably took a month making this doing sketchy researche online that they didn't even find out themselves and just gathered through the web. That is sketchy.
confess5 2 years ago
Sketchy? More like false and misleading. Any 'real' journalist would be hung for taking something he found on the internet and then pawning it off as truth. Why do you think there's been four or five of these films? Because the shit they put on the first one is so bogus that they had to change their "theory".
krishnalite 2 years ago
i don't think i've ever seen anyone more ignorant.
i have NO problem with people having an opinion, and expressing it. what i have a problem is, someone who has very, very sketchy research - and passes it off as fact. and, upon seeing scientific proof debunking their theories, still gives an ignorant response - rather than just accepting it.
MajicPictures 2 years ago
however the scientific proof is equally as sketchy
nigispangy 2 years ago
some, maybe.
they did prove that steel can be softened at far below its melting point (in under 5 minutes) - at lower temperatures than what would have been. i don't really want to get into this, as people can look it up for themselves. i was skeptical of the pentagon - but think of it this way - if the government had something to hide, why WOUDLN'T they just superimpose a plane into those images? they have the technology to do such a thing. they know people aren't stupid. if this truly was
MajicPictures 2 years ago
this big "cover up", you'd think that a power so strong - with so many intelligent people (some, not so much), would think to cover up their tracks perfectly, and know how to do so.
if they knew about the attacks beforehand, that's a different story. i wouldn't be surprised if they did, it would make perfect sense that they had some idea of it. but when it comes to the other theories, it's so difficult to ignore everything that debunks it.
MajicPictures 2 years ago
Wow, why people listen to this asshole is beyond me.
piperboy26 2 years ago
I'll kick this hairlips teeth in if I EVER SEE his mug on the street
ripley450 2 years ago
Very interesting! I think the USA should be proud of young men like this.
wauzi123 2 years ago
For all those who still believe the government's 'official version' (called the Official Conspiracy Act), answer ONE pertinent question, and all this goes away:
How do you fit a 124' wide aircraft, 42' tall, into a 16' hole, causing NO damage to either side of the hole, nor above?
Please explain the physical dynamics behind the 'official explanation', AND RELEASE ONE VIDEO OF ALL THOSE CONFISCATED THAT SHOWS A 757.
We've seen hundreds of the WTC's.
National Security?
Oh....Oooookaaaaaay...
gemriderz 2 years ago
Comment removed
NickHexum1 2 years ago
Shaun, you're a frickin' idiot. Shut up, you're not in any position to claim anything yourself, so go screw your sister, or whatever you ignorant hicks do.
Diosdebaca 2 years ago
Hey I'm not a hick but I think Shaun is right. Everybody wants to pretend the US has no terrorist threats, even before 9/11. Then 9/11 happened and there's still a mass of idiots who would rather blame it on their own country. And you wonder why other countries think Americans are stupid... We bring it on ourselves!
fengineer08 2 years ago
The truth is, fengineer, we knew there were credible threats from terrorism, however, if it were not orchestrated by our government, it was certainly abetted by us. And obviously feng, you need to go back and study your history before you make little ignorant comments like that.
Diosdebaca 2 years ago
you think some 22 year old piece of shit kid knows what really happened that day. LMAO how pathetic.
shaun3189 2 years ago
maybe over 700 architects and engineers know what didn't happen -> google "architects and engineers for 9/11 truth"
htzpltz 2 years ago
so what exactly happen on 911?
ipponsuki 2 years ago
ALIENS BLEW UP NEW YORK!!!
karlhelvede 2 years ago
thats a movie dumby
antivirusdesign 2 years ago
mr. d. avery is the only man who has the balls to confront the evil doer"s of the world. and yes, mr. bush had everything to do with this event on 9/11/2001. the plan was put together long ago, years in advance. and dick chaney is the mastermind of the plan, that hasnt really taken its full effect on humanity. look into chaney and how he started to put it all together.
deadman49 2 years ago
IT WAS THE TRAITOR BUSH!
Bush did 911, and here's how it went down.
Bush was on the first plane to hit WTC and parachuted out at the last minute shouting "mission accomplished!". If you look at the film footage you can see his parachute, it says "Don't mess with Texas" on it.
Cheney piloted the other plane that crashed into the WTC. He died and the GOP replaced him with a robot clone.
For real.
911morontwoofer 2 years ago
"mr. d. avery is the only man "
So what did his co-producers do? Just sit there and look stupid?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hey every one check out my videos , i have ron paul vids and alex jones interviews... peace and keep fighting the NWO!
RonPaulIsiah 2 years ago
loose change is true, if not, get your head checked.
IMnotSAS 2 years ago
'loose change is true'
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
pick any fact from loose change and it will be either made up, not relevent or taken out of context.
go on pick ur favourite
oldmanwanker 2 years ago
"Osama Bin Laden did 9/11!"
Hahahahahahahahahahaaah...! Do you also believe in Santa?
And are you also with the bunch who don't want a new investigation (who - how odd it may seem - always are the ones not able to even consider the I-job)? Don't you think it's a little disrespecting e.g. the widows that made "Press For Truth"?
Thetan1974 2 years ago
i stand by my previous comment
oldmanwanker 2 years ago
press for truth is a fuckin joke, 911 is now a commercial object where people make money from it,
oldmanwanker 2 years ago
'popular mechanics tells the truth'
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
pick any fact from their "debunking" and it's either a strawman or completely out of context.
antivirusdesign 2 years ago
choose a fact then dickhead
oldmanwanker 2 years ago
you first koolaid drinker
antivirusdesign 2 years ago
every 'fact' in loose change is either made up or taken out of context or not relevant, go on pick one, u r the koolaid drinker dude not even lookin beyond youtube clips for evidense, sad lad
oldmanwanker 2 years ago
i don't need loose change like you need your debunker friends to make you feel comfortable about your government. it's obvious to me that 911 was a n inside job. the free fall collapse of the towers, the fact the fires weren't even hot enough to even weaken steel, the collapse of 7, the fact that al qaeda is funded and trained by the CIA... i could go on for a while. you should go watch "zero: an investigation into 9/11"
antivirusdesign 2 years ago
the free fall collapse of the towers, WRONG NOT A SINGLE TOWER FELL AT FREEFALL
the fact the fires weren't even hot enough to even weaken steel WRONG the collapse of 7 WHAT?
the fact that al qaeda is funded and trained by the CIA HAHA WRONG
..
oldmanwanker 2 years ago
all feel at freefall speed
-true
fires not strong enough whatsoever to weaken steel
-true
collapse of 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed (no plane hitting this one)
-true
everybody knows that al qaeda is boogyman group that the CIA made up, dumby
-true
you can sit there and lie to your self all you want, but until you back yourself up im gonna have to assume that your full of shit and you haven't looked for yourself. so hurry! go read up on your popular mechanics propaganda.